sei_alterar_documento_externo

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that the tool modifies metadata and optionally replaces the file, which aligns with annotations. It also mentions version availability and error fallback, but does not disclose authorization needs or other behavioral traits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a bullet-like list of parameters and a separate line for version and error handling. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action, though some sentences like the error fallback could be condensed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (1 required), 0% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, version, and error handling. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., document must exist, user permissions) and does not guide the agent on when this tool is appropriate relative to siblings like sei_consultar_documento_externo. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (no property descriptions), so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so: id_documento (ID), descricao (new description), nivel_acesso (with enum values 0/1/2), hipotese_legal (conditional requirement), and arquivo_path (optional file replacement). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Altera metadados de um documento externo (e opcionalmente substitui o arquivo).' This is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sei_criar_documento_externo (create) and sei_consultar_documento_externo (read), so purpose is clear and differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for updating external document metadata but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The inclusion of version and error fallback is helpful but does not substitute for usage directives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.